Arkansas to regulate chipping employees

[backtoblue]

Local News
2019 Session: Governor signs bill to regulate microchipping employees
By:
Jessi Turnure
Updated: Mar 20, 2019 04:40 PM CDT
LITTLE ROCK, Ark. - Gov. Asa Hutchinson signed a bill Tuesday that will regulate microchipping employees in Arkansas.

St. Rep. Stephen Meeks, R-Greenbrier, sponsored the legislation to keep the state ahead of the technology.

Thus as of today Arkansas becomes one of the first (if not the first) to address employer microchipping of employees.

House Bill 1177, now Act 516, allows employees to opt out of getting microchipped without the threat of being fired. They would have to give written consent before the implantation and could request to remove it at any time.

Employers would have to cover all of the costs associated with the microchip. They would also have to tell employees what kind of data the microchip will maintain and how they plan to use it.

A handful of other state legislatures are currently considering similar bills.

https://www.kark.com/news/local-news/2019-session-governor-signs-bill-to-regulate-microchipping-employees/1864216886

Short story, no more at link


Ok. I've never heard of employers microchipping employees. WTF?

[Rhiannon12866]

1. What?? In case they get lost - like my dog is microchipped??

What happens if they change jobs - which people tend to do these days??

[backtoblue]

8. It's just not necessary

The cons outweigh the pros. I'm gonna put my "creatively speculating' hat on and wonder if this is a data collecting and tracking microchip.

The pros:. (According to article linked below)

Easy access to unhealthy vending machines. (The money comes out of your pay.)

Easy access to open accessible doors.

No need for security ID

This seems like a company pushing this technology to make the employee's work day a bit easier. BUT WAIT...

These chips can also track employees through the work site and who's to assure them that they aren't being tracked while away from work, on their personal time?

"Yes, Joe, we promise not to record your every movement, what brands of snacks you like, how many times you visit the bathroom, or give information to third parties (except insurance companies, marketing firms, and the federal government).
You can believe us, Joe. We would NEVER try to make a profit off you, even though we're a corporation and have fiduciary responsibilities to our shareholders."

[NewJeffCT]

15. Not to mention

"we'd never tell your wife that you're driving the new woman in accounting home from work instead of working that extra 30 or 60 minutes..."

or

"sorry, your blood pressure is a bit high this month, you can't buy that donut from the coffee shop across the street...and we recommend you switch to decaf."

[TheBlackAdder]

16. Come on, it's 2019. It's time for modernized workforce controls sanctioned by the GOP & Koch's.

.

?w=650

.

[rampartc]

2. replaces id cards, keys, and quarters for the venfing machines

https://www.technologyreview.com/s/611884/this-company-embeds-microchips-in-its-employees-and-they-love-it/

https://www.kark.com/news/local-news/2019-session-bill-would-regulate-microchipping-employees-in-arkansas/1708706584

arkansas legislature probably has a "mark of the beast" objection.

[rownesheck]

3. I'm ready!

Chip me all up, as well as replace my human limbs with bionic parts! Please! I'll be the Guinea pig!

[lagomorph777]

9. Here you go. Your chip number is 666.

[sinkingfeeling]

4. Maybe Walmart was looking into it.

[OriginalGeek]

13. judging by the checkout lanes at any one I've been to

they have no employees to track.

[hatrack]

5. We already have chips - they're called "cell phones" . . .

And they're already pretty much surgically attached to most peoples' hands.

[Vinca]

6. Microchipping employees???? That's creepy.

[End Of The Road]

7. Just like tagging the cattle. nt

[jcgoldie]

10. Just what we need

... our employer knowing how many beers we had last night or if we smoked a J. How about if we were really at home when we called in sick? Fuck this shit.

[fescuerescue]

11. This law might make the practice common or accelerate it

As an unintended consequence.

Prior to this, chipping employees was risky legally. With no framework and case law, lots of room for civil suits from employees.

Now with this there is a regulatory framework to rely on, which means that risk-adverse employers (i.e. the ones that want to put a chip in you), now can rely on statute to justify their practice.

A better approach? How about just banning the practice outright!

[backtoblue]

14. +1 for banning the use!

This takes data mining to a whole new and potentially sinister level.

[Captain Stern]

17. How about not banning it outright?

Why are so many people into banning stuff nowadays?

What's wrong with just having a law that's written like the one in the OP?

Getting the chip is voluntary.

[fescuerescue]

18. Well I thought I explained it

By providing a regulatory framework for implanting devices into employees, it reduces the legal risk of doing so. hey - it's now government sanctioned!

Corporations that were relunctant to chip employees before due to liability, now have the green light from the government.

How can that NOT make it more common?

And yes. it will be as voluntary as drug tests and other things that employers do. (Yes its voluntary. If you don't want a chip in your forehead simply resign)

[Captain Stern]

22. Of course it's going to be more common.

That's going to happen whether these kinds of laws are in place or not.

This law specifically states that an employee can't be penalized for opting out of being chipped. That's pretty much the whole point of the law.

Banning the chips altogether is akin to 'throwing out the baby with the bathwater'. I think it's better to embrace the technology, and take advantage of the good that it offers, while passing specific legislation that prevents the bad that can come with it.

[fescuerescue]

23. I think that is bathwater that needs to be thrown out

I've stated my opinion.

This law will only accelerate the adoption and put MORE pressure on employees to be chipped not less.

This is a prime example of the law of unintended consequences.

[Volaris]

20. Until it's not for you to get or keep your job...

[Captain Stern]

21. True. But that's what the law explicitly forbids.

The law is being put in place to specifically forbid that.

That way, the employees that want to be chipped can be, and the ones that don't want to be, don't have to be.

That's being accomplished without banning it altogether.

[Hermit-The-Prog]

12. it's possible, so stop that shit now!

Orwell was an optimist when he wrote 1984.

[TomSlick]

19. Wow!

A bill proposed by a GOP legislator, that actually makes sense and restricts the power of employers, passed the GOP dominated Arkansas General Assembly AND was signed by the GOP Governor. Will wonders never cease?

I suspect that one of the posters above is correct - some number of the yahoos in the General Assembly thought microchips are the Mark of the Beast. Nevertheless, I'll take it.